This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Originally Posted by Conservative

I won't have to say a word because you won't be around to answer for your support for this POS. This bill does nothing to lower healthcare costs as it doesn't address healthcare costs. people will opt out, pay the fine, and the unhealthy will drive up premiums for the rest of us.

That's what they are doing now. Where has your outrage been?

We'll see.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

My outrage is against a govt. that drives up healthcare costs by not allowing for tort reform, competition across state lines, and promoting a consumer controlled and run healthcare system.

Other than tort reform, which studies show has little effect on driving up costs, you just described Obamacare. Though the competition across state lines thing isn't as strong as it was in early versions of the bill.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

You think insuring another 34 million people with a bill that does nothing to lower actual healthcare costs is good for the American people?

From your article:

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill -- Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings -- could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

(snip)

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period, even if overall health care spending rises.

Two things: Long term versus short term. If we don nothing, long term is bleak.

Second, cost is only part of the concern. The other is coverage and health.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

From your article:

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill -- Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings -- could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

(snip)

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period, even if overall health care spending rises.

Two things: Long term versus short term. If we don nothing, long term is bleak.

Second, cost is only part of the concern. The other is coverage and health.

Interesting how agencies cannot predict current costs are in your world better at predicting future costs. You want so badly to buy what you are told about reducing costs yet ignore basic logic and common sense. Why such passion for this POS legislation that is going to cost trillions, money that has to be borrowed and does nothing to actually lower costs or improve quality. A good first step that costs trillions should do a better job than this one.

You claim you have insurance so tell me why this is such an issue for you since 90% of this country also has insurance?

Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Originally Posted by Conservative

Interesting how agencies cannot predict current costs are in your world better at predicting future costs. You want so badly to buy what you are told about reducing costs yet ignore basic logic and common sense. Why such passion for this POS legislation that is going to cost trillions, money that has to be borrowed and does nothing to actually lower costs or improve quality. A good first step that costs trillions should do a better job than this one.

You claim you have insurance so tell me why this is such an issue for you since 90% of this country also has insurance?

Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Originally Posted by misterman

Note the term "From your article".

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Originally Posted by Conservative

Interesting how agencies cannot predict current costs are in your world better at predicting future costs. You want so badly to buy what you are told about reducing costs yet ignore basic logic and common sense. Why such passion for this POS legislation that is going to cost trillions, money that has to be borrowed and does nothing to actually lower costs or improve quality. A good first step that costs trillions should do a better job than this one.

You claim you have insurance so tell me why this is such an issue for you since 90% of this country also has insurance?

Re-read my post.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.